A Delhi court recently denied bail to a man accused of cheating a Haryana judicial officer out of more than ₹52 lakh through an alleged honey trap that began on mobile dating app Tinder.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler said that the material on record prima facie reflected a pattern commonly seen in online romance scams and observed that the financial transactions in the case were “consistent with the hypothesis of a honey trap.”

In November 2025, the victim-judge came into contact with the accused through Tinder. The accused allegedly introduced himself as “Abhimanyu Vashishth” and claimed to be an officer in a secret government department.

The two subsequently developed a relationship, during the course of which the judge allegedly transferred more than ₹52 lakh to accounts linked to the accused. The prosecution claimed that the money was transferred after the accused induced her to invest on the promise of high returns.

The promised returns never materialised and the transactions ultimately led to allegations of cheating and fraud.

The FIR, however, was not lodged by the judge. Instead, the complaint was filed in the name of her domestic worker, who alleged that she had been cheated through an online dating application.

The accused was subsequently arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After a trial court declined him bail, he approached the sessions court.

While examining his bail plea, the Court found that almost all the transactions under scrutiny had originated from the judicial officer’s bank accounts and not from the domestic worker’s account.

“The complaint as filed does not seem to reflect the true complainant,” the Court observed. It noted,

“A judicial officer - a person who is herself entrusted with the solemn duty of dispensing justice, of upholding truth before the law, and of expecting others who appear before her to present the complete facts - has chosen to approach this court obliquely, through her maid’s name, rather than coming forward herself."

The Court acknowledged that falling victim to a romance scam could cause personal embarrassment, but that could not justify withholding material facts or evidence from investigators.

“The officer’s personal discomfort cannot be permitted to compromise the integrity of a criminal investigation,” it added.

The Court further noted that crucial electronic evidence remained missing from the investigation. Despite the relationship having originated on Tinder, neither the Tinder chats nor the judicial officer’s complete WhatsApp conversations had been placed on record. Call detail records had also not been collected, it said.

“The victim, being a judicial officer, is better placed than most to understand that the path to justice requires candour. She should, at the earliest opportunity, come before the IO - or, if she so chooses, before the Ld. Magistrate and place on record the complete and unvarnished truth: her full WhatsApp communication history with the accused, her Tinder chat history, her own understanding of why she made the payments she made, and who directed, suggested, or induced those payments."

The Court was equally critical of the accused. It noted that he had produced only those WhatsApp messages sent by the judicial officer while withholding his own replies. He had also refused to provide access to his mobile phone.

“The accused is playing hide and seek,” the Court remarked.

The Court also faulted the investigating officer for failing to secure key electronic evidence and for not adequately investigating several aspects of the case, including the source of a ₹5 lakh cash deposit and the role of entities through which part of the money was allegedly routed.

Referring to the chats and financial transactions placed before it, the Court said that the case appeared to follow a pattern commonly seen in online romance scams.

Finding that the investigation was still at an early stage and that important evidence remained to be collected, the Court declined to grant bail to the accused.

It also directed the investigating officer to obtain the complete Tinder and WhatsApp records of the parties, verify their alleged meetings, investigate the entities involved in the movement of funds and expedite analysis of the accused’s mobile phone.

The accused was represented by Advocates Rahul Kumar and Pooja Chauhan.

The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Santosh Kumar.